2013/1/18 ag at gmail <amarendra.godbole at gmail.com>:
> So do I read it something like this: While walking on the street, I found an unlocked door to a bar and walked in, grabbed a bottle of vodka, gulped it down, and walked out. I was caught, since I was 17.
>> Now blame the bar for having its door unlocked or the person who forgot the bottle of vodka on the table. Don't every utter anything about underage drinking... (though it is illegal). Not exact, but you get the idea.
The point is, MIT kept the network open as well thought out policy. It
is MIT culture not to restrict their network. Do you not see the
proportion as an issue? Agreed, it is rude on Aaron's part to have
misused the access, but does it deserve 35 years in jail? Also
remember JSTOR did not want to prosecute Aaron.
> If JSTOR should be free - one should put efforts to gather those many articles on their own. Why steal? Another thing - part of JSTOR fees goes towards paying the authors of those articles, from what I read. By wanting it for free, you also deny rightful money to the very people who put their ideas on paper. I consider this abuse of the term Free... Gandhi did not take away salt from the British, it was rightfully given to those who owned it. In this case, the papers were not rightfully Aaron's or of public...
Copying is not stealing and Aaron did not distribute the articles he
copied. The people who wrote the papers are already paid.
"Another thing to consider is that academic writers are paid through
salaries and grants; they aren't paid (not directly, anyway) for the
publication of their work. The whole system of compensation for
academic content is very different from commercial publishing. When
you pay for a JSTOR article online, none of the money goes to the
author, it goes to the publisher."
http://www.theawl.com/2011/08/was-aaron-swartz-stealing
> We don't need more Aarons, for sure.
>> YMMV.
Yes, I believe we need more Aarons and that is why I'm talking about
his work with as many people as possible.
>From the same article,
"Swartz is being charged with hacker crimes, not
copyright-infringement crimes, because he didn't actually distribute
any documents, plus JSTOR didn't even want him prosecuted. These
charges are: Wire Fraud, Computer Fraud, Unlawfully Obtaining
Information from a Protected Computer, Recklessly Damaging a Protected
Computer, Aiding and Abetting, and Criminal Forfeiture, and Being Too
Smart for Being Such a Young Guy, and That Seems Dangerous (I made up
only the last bit.)"
And closing statement,
The conclusion of Lessig's CERN presentation is particularly stirring.
We need to recognize in the academy, I think, an ethical
obligation [...] An ethical obligation which is at the core of our
mission. Our mission is universal access to knowledge—not American
university access to knowledge, but universal access to knowledge in
every part of the globe.
We don't need, for our work, exclusivity; and we shouldn't
practice, with our work, exclusivity. And we should name those who do,
wrong. Those who do are inconsistent with the ethic of our work.
The aims and ideals of Aaron Swartz can, I believe, be laid to some
degree at this man's door. That is something I would be very proud of,
if I were Lawrence Lessig. Whatever the results of the government's
actions against Swartz—and whether or not those actions are ultimately
motivated by an instinct toward intellectual property protectionism of
the kind demonstrated by the RIAA and others in the U.S.—there can be
little doubt that the motives of people like Lawrence Lessig and Aaron
Swartz spring from a desire to serve the public good. To that extent
we are in their debt, rather than the reverse.
--
പ്രവീണ്‍ അരിമ്പ്രത്തൊടിയില്‍
You have to keep reminding your government that you don't get your
rights from them; you give them permission to rule, only so long as
they follow the rules: laws and constitution.